get_organization_daily_usage_data

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It does not disclose important behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior beyond mentioning page/page_size. The description lacks critical details for a data retrieval tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured with a brief summary followed by bullet-point-like lines for arguments. It is reasonably concise but includes redundant elements like repeating the function signature. Could be shorter and more direct.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the tool's purpose and parameter meanings, but given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters) and the existence of an output schema, it does not explain what the returned data represents or any limitations. It leaves the agent without a complete picture of the tool's behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning (e.g., organization_id format, date range as epoch ms). However, it does not clarify constraints like allowed values for team_ids_json (e.g., JSON array format) or the behavior of page/page_size (e.g., default values, max page size). The explanation adds value but is incomplete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves organization daily usage data, specifying HTTP method and path. It lists the arguments, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_daily_usage_data or get_spending_data, which reduces clarity in context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides basic context (retrieving org daily usage) but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or best practices are mentioned. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.